Lydia Wegman

October 12, 2005

Page 1

October 12, 2005

Lydia Wegman

USEPA RTP

Mail Drop C504-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 99350

Dear Ms. Wegman:

The Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) has a longstanding interest in the Natural Events Policy (NEP). We reviewed the current policy and provided our recommendations based on that review in June of 2005. On behalf of the 15 states that make up the WESTAR Council, I am pleased to offer the following comments and recommendations based on our review of the Staff Work Paper on the Use of Air Quality Data Related to Exceptional Events for the Particulate Matter Standards.

We are once again submitting our original recommendations to you as Enclosure 1. We developed the recommendations to propose ways that the policy could be more workable for both States and EPA. In addition, we have attached responses to the questions in Joe Paisie’s transmittal memorandum for the Staff Work Paper, “Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional and Natural Events” as Enclosure 2, “WESTAR Responses to EPA’s Specific Questions in the Cover Memo.” Also enclosed is a table that compares WESTAR’s recommendations on the issues we identified to how EPA addressed those issues in the draft staff paper (see Enclosure 3, “Comparison of WESTAR Recommendations with EPA Draft Staff Work Paper (8/11/05) on Exceptional and Natural Event Rulemaking”).

Following are several over-arching comments on the staff paper that we respectfully submit for your consideration:

  1. WESTAR States have considerable experience with natural events and the application of the current natural events policy. EPA should work with the States and make use of that expertise in developing the new natural/exceptional events rule.
  1. Throughout the draft staff paper, there is not a clear distinction between “exceptional events” and “natural events.” WESTAR recommends that EPA maintain a clear distinction between the definitions of “natural” and “exceptional” events, and between the relevant requirements for each. The focus of our review of the staff paper has been on natural events, not exceptional events. Similarly, we have found that there is not a clear distinction between the use of the terms, “exceedance,” “violation,” and references to not meeting the standard.
  1. EPA’s proposals on documentation have not addressed the basic issue of what constitutes reasonable and appropriate documentation. The complexity of the supporting documentation should be proportional to the complexity of the circumstances surrounding the natural event. Documentation requirements should not be such a high hurdle as to exclude a weight of evidence approach. EPA should work with state and local agencies to formulate guidelines to be used as the basis for reasonable and appropriate documentation requirements.
  1. SAFETEA requires EPA to propose an exceptional/natural events rule by March 1, 2006, more than two months after EPA’s self-imposed deadline of December 20, 2005. It also mandates involvement by State air pollution control agencies in the process of developing the revised policy. WESTAR believes that EPA should delay its rulemaking and engage with States in a meaningful way. If EPA should choose to proceed according to its current schedule, WESTAR recommends that the proposed rule establish a framework for a revised natural events policy and require EPA to work with the States on a revised policy.
  1. WESTAR is very concerned that EPA is expressly excluding application of the new rule to PM10. EPA’s rationale for this decision is that the PM10 NAAQS will be revoked soon. Yet, this will probably be a very lengthy process. Federal reference or equivalent methods need to be established, monitors purchased, monitoring sites established, three years of quality assured data collected, and areas designated before the PM10 standard can be revoked. If the new rule does not apply to all particulate matter,some areas will be subject to the existing policy on natural events as it applies to PM10 and a new rule with its inevitable differences that would apply to PM2.5 and PMthoracic coarse. Therefore, WESTAR strongly recommends that the new rule specifically apply to all forms of the particulate matter standard.
  1. The staff paper requires Natural Events Actions Plans demonstrate the application of BACM on all sources of soil that have been disturbed by anthropogenic activities in any area with a monitor impacted by a high-wind event, regardless of the impact of the source on the monitor site. WESTAR recommends that the NEAP address controls for sources where those controls abate or minimize emissions that contribute significantly to unhealthy air during natural events.

WESTAR appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft staff paper on rulemaking for natural and exceptional events. If you have any questions related to any of the enclosed comments and recommendations, please call Dan Johnson at 206-254-9145.

Sincerely,

Stuart A. Clark, President

WESTAR Council

Enclosures

cc: Larry Wallace, USEPA-RTP, Mail Drop C504-02